It’s nice exposure; in fact I don’t think I’ve seen EPIC direct-quoted as often in any piece of commentary, either in print or on the web. Usually you get a cursory summary, followed by analysis — here Hirschorn gives Sloan and Thompson’s words, plus ebullient adjectives, appended to his own take on the situation.

(I’m sure it’s the fact that I’ve been grading student papers all week, but so much quoting almost makes it seem like Hirschorn is padding his word count.)

A small criticism — given how much space MH gives to EPIC, couldn’t he mention the names of these two guys Sloan and Thompson who came up with the thing? I mean, it isn’t like this piece just assembled itself. Like, uh, EPIC.

Perhaps Tim and I are just showing the standards of our industry, but the article as currently written does suggest that EPIC was more a product of the zeitgeist than of two living breathing human beings not employed by Google.

How hard is it to give even a tiny bit of attribution to the creators of our century’s “Zapruder film?” (How will future centuries know to label their equivalents as the Sloan/Thompson films of the future?)